https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66677
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 29 07:30:47 2015
New Revision: 225112
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-29 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66677
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63310
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66688
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66685
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66687
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Are you sure you produced all LTO bytecode with exactly the same compiler?
Reminds me to bump the LTO bytecode version again on trunk (it's still the same
as that on the GCC 5 branch...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66683
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cr88192 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66682
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #12)
> I could reproduce the problem on trunk with '-DXS_VERSION=\"6.89\" -fwrapv
> -fno-strict-aliasing -fopenmp -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -fexceptio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66683
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Note that most of the memory goes to building the expression in GCCs internal
representation. The most compile-time spent in a single routine is parsing
the float constants (real_from_string, running into m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65750
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jun 29 09:34:58 2015
New Revision: 225114
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-06-29 Adam Butcher
PR c++/65750
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65750
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66652
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35873
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35873&action=edit
tentative patch
currently doing bootstrap and reg-test on x86_64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jun 29 13:12:44 2015
New Revision: 225116
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225116&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/66322
* c-common.c (check_case_bounds): Add bool *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58861
Kyle Horne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||elrond at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66695
Bug ID: 66695
Summary: [4.9, 5 Regression] ICE with binding-name equal to
overloaded name of use-associated procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66652
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, wrong-code
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #12)
> diff --git a/config/sh/sh.c b/config/sh/sh.c
> index 0139095..86cbea7 100644
> --- a/config/sh/sh.c
> +++ b/config/sh/sh.c
> @@ -5261,6 +5261,11 @@ find_barrier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #39 from Oleg Endo ---
Can we close this PR as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8743
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66516
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg02043.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66539
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Jun 29 15:27:39 2015
New Revision: 225125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/66539: Add parentheses as needed to gcc_jit_object_get_debug_str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66627
Bug 66627 depends on bug 66539, which changed state.
Bug 66539 Summary: Missing parentheses in jit dumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66539
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66539
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Poggiali ---
(In reply to Antonio Poggiali from comment #8)
> Hi all, I'm also trying the backport.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.
> c?revision=221077&view=markup&pathrev=221077
>
> Is only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #8 from Antonio Poggiali ---
Hi all, I'm also trying the backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.c?revision=221077&view=markup&pathrev=221077
Is only this part of code to be backported?
Regards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #63 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 29 16:03:34 2015
New Revision: 225132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-29 Matthew Wahab
PR target/65697
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #64 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 29 16:09:10 2015
New Revision: 225133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-29 Matthew Wahab
PR target/65697
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #65 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 29 16:12:12 2015
New Revision: 225134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-29 Matthew Wahab
PR target/65697
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Mon Jun 29 16:25:26 2015
New Revision: 225135
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225135&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Wunused-parameter warnings are given from cgraph::finalize_function,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
--- Comment #16 from Manuel Ló
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Antonio Poggiali from comment #9)
> Sorry, this code:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.
> c?r1=221077&r2=221076&pathrev=221077
Yes, but I'm not convinced it's the r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63310
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jun 29 17:45:34 2015
New Revision: 225139
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225139&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/63310
* gcc-interface/utils.c (gnat_write_globa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63310
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66696
Bug ID: 66696
Summary: confusing diagnostic on a friend main definition
returning void
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65977
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
Bug ID: 66697
Summary: Feature request: -mstackrealign and
force_align_arg_pointer for x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhanc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66698
Bug ID: 66698
Summary: Multiple inheritance from instantiations of template
class and what about access to member functions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66699
Bug ID: 66699
Summary: Incorrect order of destruction for std::tuple elements
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66699
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see why you think this is an issue because:
f(temp(), temp());
The C++ does not specifies which one gets constructed first or second.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65977
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jun 29 22:02:08 2015
New Revision: 225148
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225148&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-06-29 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/65977
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65977
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65732
Kyle Manna <2bluesc at gmail dot com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||2bluesc at gmail d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #15 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14)
> I was trying to understand what's happening there ... it's a bit confusing.
> A cleaner way would probably be to add a function in final.c to update the
> cached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65732
--- Comment #3 from Kyle Manna <2bluesc at gmail dot com> ---
I bisected this using the script @ https://gist.github.com/7d4007a2c18c62a1d84d
It discovers the bad commit to be 492e19d098f4bf4f22bac22815e9cb117be55b33
This seems related to https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55824
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
dot or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55824
--- Comment #5 from Damian Rouson ---
I'm guessing the code below is another manifestation of the this bug:
$ cat ice-on-pack-unlimited-polymorphic.f90
contains
subroutine array_to_vector(array)
class(*), allocatable :: vector(:),array(:,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #16 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #15)
> I'll look for another point to call shorten_branches
> which can fix the issue.
OK, I'm giving up on this and now testing the patch below.
diff --git a/co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66700
Bug ID: 66700
Summary: Bogus gimplification of jit code using ptrs to
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66700
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 35875
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35875&action=edit
Minimal reproducer
This gimplifies to:
test_caller_of_write_back_through_ptr ()
{
d.0;
D.59;
d;
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66700
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 35876
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35876&action=edit
Dump of initial GENERIC form of function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66509
--- Comment #19 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Tue Jun 30 02:10:43 2015
New Revision: 225158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225158&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66509
* configure.ac: Fix filds and fild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66700
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Looks like we're not setting
TREE_ADDRESSABLE (x) = 1
when taking the address of something.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66700
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 35877
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35877&action=edit
Crude patch that fixes the testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #15)
> sh_reorg calls shorten_branches after the loop which includes
> find_barrier call and get_attr_length will return correct value
> after that.
I see. If I unders
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
BTW, in sh_reorg there is...
label_ref_list_d::pool.release ();
for (insn = first; insn; insn = NEXT_INSN (insn))
PUT_MODE (insn, VOIDmode);
mdep_reorg_phase = SH_SHORTEN_BRANCHES1;
INSN_ADDRESSES_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66699
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #19 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #18)
I don't know how it works, though I've found
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01108.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66699
--- Comment #3 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Since the layout of std::pair members is fully specified, so is the order of
> their initialization and destruction. The output of the test case reflects
> this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65732
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
492e19d098f4 in binutils is r205292 in gcc.
64 matches
Mail list logo
